The point is in the "we knew it back then". The majority of the blame then is not necessarily on the UCI but on the media and the court of public opinion.

The court of public opinion? Witness the Tour, I'd argue 99.9% of public does not care about doping, they want spectacle. The 10odd posters arguing here or elsewhere the opposite way would seem like a tiny minority.

The media? Look, there's a lot of interesting stuff in that senate report (about the 98 WC soccer for one; tennis (again) and rugby) but the media seems unable to dig any deeper than a bunch of names spoon fed so conveniently in an appendix. The media is lazy and just feeds the public what it wants (spectacle - and providing those names is just that) cause it sells.

Nothing's gonna change without those outside pressures. Changing "W" for Obama did not make Guantanamo go away, changing McQ for someone else will not make doping go away. The media and the public hold the keys to change.

Yo Mike wrote: "I also don't buy the 'all or none' demand regarding punishing the doped peloton any more than I accept the 'doping to level the playing field' rationalle. Cheating is cheating. " Seems like an inconsistent position, taking the absolute position on one hand and acknowledging that not doping sins were identical on the other. I don't mean to call out Yo Mike in particular because many posters seem to do the same thing. My point is you can't have it both ways.

Two cars are speeding down a country road, racing. Speeding in a car is a crime. A cop car then pulls out of the bushes to pursue the speeders. Farther down the road, one car fails to avoid a pedestrian in the road, and hits the pedestrian. Then the road splits, and each car takes a different fork.

They were both speeding and breaking the law, but which car do you think the cops should pursue?

IMO what Yo Mike says makes sense if I read it correctly: rather that trying to cast a dragnet to catch all cheaters, which does not work (ample parallel examples in society show that its foolish), focus your efforts on the big fish, the ones that stand out. In fact, Lemond pretty much said same somewhere during the LA saga and when they were putting him forward as UCI presidente (remember that, LOL), something along the lines of you can't expect sport to be totally clean but you gotta weed out the extremes. Its pretty much in line with my thinking.

jmdirt, In my first post I stated: "My dislike towards LA is not because he cheated and won but because of his arrogance and the way he bullied' and finished with: "Like I said before I knew they cheated back then and it’s not how they won that I am ranting about, but how they treated others."

My understanding of JU statement was that's how they raced back then, and I simply agreed with what he said, so not sure what you see that I don't.

We aren't talking about cheating and not winning though. We are comparing the treatment of winning cheaters. Why is LA the only dope champ who got removed from the records?*

To use Yo Mike's analogy, there were a lot of cars speeding, many cars hit pedestrians, but the record books only show one losing his license. I know the argument is that he hit seven pedestrians, while others only hit one or two. The ones who didn't hit a pedestrian never got noticed.

Pin, not doubt LA was an asshat. But what I took from what JU said was that all the other dopers are still on the books so LA should be too. Your first post indicated that you agreed: /"So as far as I'm concerned yes let him have his wins but don't let him compete EVER, that will be the bigger slap in the face than his name in the books..."/

Your second post told us that we didn't get it because JU was talking about the UCI.

Armstrong wasn't merely a cheater. He was a bully, a two-bit thug who acted as a mafia Don with impunity and with the protection of the highest offices of the governing body, the UCI.

He shamelessly pimped the cancer community for the sake of self-aggrandizement.

He used his immense power and wealth to undermine any attempt at an investigation and in the end did nothing to cooperate with the proper authorities.

Ullrich is of the opinion that the doping playing field was level. If it was, a slug like Armstrong wouldn't have made a mockery of the Tour's time trials and climbs the way he did.

So he got exactly what he deserved in the end. The theory that Armstrong was on the same footing as the other dopers is absurd, and has been proven to be an incorrect assumption by the USADA's reasoned decision.

Time to move on. Until Armstrong comes clean and tells all, I don't care what anyone says to try to justify his status. He is nothing more than an unfortunate footnote in the sordid history of sports doping.

O.C., a comment on your "W" - Obama switch. I agree. but it doesn't have to be that way. THe US was in a similar situation in 1952, deeply embroiled in an ugly war, Korea. Dwight Eisenhower was elwcted president. He came into office late January. By that April, the treaty with North Korea was signed.

I had high hopes Obama would do the same thing. I have found him a big disappointment on virtually all things military. I think his big failing is listening to and allowing himself to think like the military brass who have his ear.

Edit: I am still a bit of a dreamer. I have high hopes that somebody will find his way to the top of UCI and pull a Dwight Eisenhower.

Its interesting how people on the outside seem to know more than the people on the inside about what was going on. If Dr. Ferrari himself said that LA's program was similar to his other clients there would be people claiming that Ferrari didn't know what he was talking about. Plus, how do we know that other programs/methods weren't just as good. TH did well with his program until EF spread himself too thin and almost killed his clients. JU knows that his program (as well as others) was good too.